th

Traffic Engineering, 4 Edition

Roess, R.P., Prassas, E.S., and McShane, W.R.
FALL 2012

Solutions to Homework No. 4  – Chapter 9

Problem 9-1

 A limited network counting study waswas conducted for eth network shown here, Because
Because
only two sets of road tubes were available, the study was conducted over a period of 
several days, using Station A as a control location. The network is shown here.

Figure 9.19
1 2 3

4 5
A 6

7 8 9

Using the data from the study, shown in the tables estimate the 12-hour volume (8 am
to 8 PM) at each station for the average day.

Table 9.14: Axle Counts for Control Station A

TIME PERIOD
DAY 8:00-11:45 am 12:00 - 3:45 PM 4:00 -7:45 PM
Monday 3,000 2,800 4,100
Tuesday 3,300 3,000 4,400
Wednesday
Wednesda y 4,000 3,600 5,000
 Table 9.15: Axle  – Counts for Coverage Stations

Station Day Time Axle Count

1 Monday 8:00 – 11:45 1,900
2 Monday 12:00  – 3:45 2,600
3 Monday 4:00 – 7:45 1,500
4 Tuesday 8:00 – 11:45 3,000
5 Tuesday 12:00 – 3:45 3,600
6 Tuesday 4:00 – 7:45 4,800
7 Wednesday 8:00 – 11:45 3,500
8 Wednesday 12:00 – 3:45 3,200
9 Wednesday 4:00 – 7:45 4,400

The problem calls for estimating a total 12‐hour volume for the study data shown.
There is one control‐count station (Station A, Figure 9.19) and 9 coverage‐count
stations (Stations 1‐9, Figure 9.19). There are several issues that must be addre ssed in
the estimation process:

• Data was taken in three four‐hour periods: 8 AM to 12 Noon, 12 Noon to 4 PM,

and 4 PM to 8PM. To allow for movement of data crews, however, actual counts
were taken for 3.75 hours out of each 4‐hour period. All counts, therefore, must
be multiplied by 4.00/3.75 = 1.067 to estimate the actual 4‐hr counts.

• Counts were taken using road tubes, and thus represent axle‐counts, not
vehicle‐counts. Sample data on traffic composition (Table 9.16) must be used to
estimate the average number of axles per vehicle, which can than be used to
convert axle‐counts to vehicle‐counts.
vehicle‐counts.

• Counts taken during one 4‐hour period must be expanded t o estimate counts for
the 12‐hour target period.

• Counts were taken across three days. All counts must, therefore, be adjusted to
reflect the average day of the count.

These conversions can be done in almost any order, and are best done using a
spreadsheet. As all results must be rounded to the nearest vehicle, the order of 
computations and the rounding mechanism used may cause small discrepancies in
final answers. In this solution, rounding is done only  in the final step, although most of 
the spreadsheet tables will appear to be rounded at each step.
Table 1, which follows, computes the average number of axles per vehicle from the
sample data of Table 9.16. The total number of axles observed is divided by the total
number of vehicles observed to determine the conversion factor.

Table 1: Computing the Average Number of Axles Per Vehicle

Average Axles/Vehicle = 2,780/1,276 = 2.18

The data from the Control Count Station A must now be manipulated to produce
conversion values for coverage counts. Two conversions must be conducted: a) from
4‐hr counts to 12‐hr counts, and b) from 12‐hr counts on a particular day to 12‐hr
counts representing the average of the three days of the study.

The first is accomplished by calibrating the percentage of 12‐hour volume that occurs
in each 4‐hour period. For each day of the study, the percentage is computed as
(V4/V12)*100. There will be different values for each day of the study. These can be
applied separately to coverage counts on the same day, or the average percentages
can be applied to all three days.

The second conversion is accomplished by calibrating “daily variation factors” for each
of the three days of the study. These factors are defined as V AVE/VDAY. The calibration
of these values can be based directly on the 3.75 ‐hr axle‐counts of Table 9.15. These
values could be
could be converted to 4‐hr vehicle‐counts and used, but the conversions would
affect every number equally, and none of the conversion values would be changed.
Table 2 illustrates the computation of these conversion values in spreadsheet form.
In terms of expanding counts from 4 hours to 12 hours, the percentages do not vary
greatly for each day of the study. Therefore, percentages based upon the average data
will be used.
Coverage counts are now expanded to full 12 ‐hour vehicle counts in Table 3, using the
following equation:
 V 12i = 1.067 V 3.75i * DF j
Pk

Where:
V12i = 12‐hour vehicle count for Station i, vehs
V3.75i = 3.75‐hour axle count for Station i, axles
1.067 = expansion factor, 3.75 hrs to 4 hrs
DF j = daily adjustment factor for day j
pk = percentage of volume
volume occurring during time period k, expressed
expressed as a
decimal

Table 2: Calibration of Conversion Values from Control ‐Count Data

Table 3: Expansion and Adjustment of Coverage Counts to 12‐Hour Vehicle‐Counts

Station Day Time Axle Veh Exp Exp Daily 12-Hr

Count Count To 4 hr To 12 hrs Adjustment counts
(/2.18) Factor
1 Monday 8:00 – 11:45 1,900 872 1.067 .3102 1.118 3352

2 Monday 12:00 – 3:45 2,600 1193 1.067 .2831 1.118 5026

3 Monday 4:00 – 7:45 1,500 688 1.067 .4066 1.118 2019

4 Tuesday 8:00 – 11:45 3,000 1376 1.067 .3102 1.034 4895

5 Tuesday 12:00 – 3:45 3,600 1651 1.067 .2831 1.034 6435

6 Tuesday 4:00 – 7:45 4,800 2202 1.067 .4066 1.034 5975

7 Wednesday 8:00 – 11:45 3,500 1606 1.067 .3102 0.878 4849

8 Wednesday 12:00 – 3:45 3,200 1468 1.067 .2831 0.878 4857

Problem 9‐2

The following control counts were made at state maintained permanent count station.
From the information given, calibrate the daily volume variation factors for this station.

Table 9.1: Data for Problem 9-2

Day of Week Average Annual

Volume for Day
Sunday 3,500
Monday 4,400
Tuesday 4,200
Wednesday 4,300
Thursday 3,900
Friday 4,900
Saturday 3,100

Daily variation factors may be computed as:

DF = VAVE
V AVG
Where:
VAVE = average daily count for all days of the week, vehs
VDAY = average daily count for each day of the week, vehs

These computations are carried out in Table 4. 4 ,.

Table 3: Calibration of Daily

D aily Adjustment Factors

e.g. 4,043/3,500
4,043/3,500 = 1.155 etc
Problem 9 ‐3

What count period would you select for a volume only study at an intersection with a
signal cycle length of (a) 60 seconds, (b) 90 seconds, and (c) 120 seconds.

a) 5 minutes
minutes or 15 minutes. Count
Count 4 of 5 or 13 of 15.
15. The counting period
period and
the actual count time must be multiples of 1 minute.

b) 6 minutes
minutes or 15 minutes.
minutes. Count 4.5 of 6 or 12 of 15.
15. The counting period and
the actual count time must be multiples of 90 seconds or 1.5 minutes.

c) 6 minutes
minutes or 18 minutes. Count
Count 4 of 6 or 16 of 18.
18. The counting period
period and
the actual count time must be multiples of 2 minutes.

Problem 9 ‐4

The following control counts were made at an urban count station to develop daily and 
monthly factors. Calibrate these factors given the data shown here.
Daily adjustment factors are based upon the data in Table 9.18. The factors, which use
the same equation noted in Problem 9‐2, are based upon the average of the 4 weeks
of data provided.

Monthly adjustment factors are based upon the data in Table 9.19, and are computed
using the following equation:

MFi = AADT
ADTi
Where:
MFi = monthly adjustment factor month i
AADT = average annual daily traffic , vehs/day
(estimated as the average of 12 monthly ADTs)
ADTi = average daily traffic for month i, vehs/day

Daily adjustment factors are calibrated in Table 4. Monthly adjustment factors are
calibrated in Table 5. Monthly variation factors must be themselves “adjusted” to
reflect the middle of each month.

Table 4: Daily Adjustment Factors Calibrated

48490
1925

48,490/7 = 6927 e.g. 6927/7700 = .90, 6927 /8400 = .825, 6925/8560 = .809
Table 5: Monthly Adjustment Factors Calibrated

ADT for Month

x 31 = 69,750
x 28 = 61,600
x 31 = 62,000
x 30 = 63,000
x 31 = 60,450
x 30 = 55,500
x 31 = 55,800
x 31 = 52,700
x 30 = 60,000
x 31 = 65,100
x 30 = 64,500
x 31 = 71,300
741,700

AADT = 741,700/365 = 2,032 veh/day

Monthly factor = 2032/2250

2032/2250 = .904,
.904, 2032/2200 = .924 etc.

These are factors of the third week of the month as per the data not the middle as
requested. You would need to plot these out to the end of the third week of the
month and then using the graph locate the end of the second week (middle of the
month and obtain the slightly adjusted monthly factor. It ain’t worth it. Lol
Problem 9 ‐ 5
The four control stations shown nearby have been regrouped for the purposes of 
calibrating
calibratin g daily variation factors. Is the group appropriate? IF not, what would be an
appropriate grouping be? What are the combined daily variation factors for the
approximate group(s)? The stations are located sequentially along a state route.

Table 9.20: Daily Variation Factors for Individual

Individual Stations
Stations

Station Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun

1 1.04 1.00 0.96 1.08 1.17 0.90 0.80
2 1.12 1.07 0.97 1.06 1.02 0.87 0.82
3 0.97 0.99 0.89 1.01 0.86 1.01 1.06
4 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.09 1.10 0.85 0.85

The four control count stations of text Table 9.20 are proposed to form a single
“group” for the purpose of calibrating Daily Adjustment Factors DF. To be an
appropriate grouping, the “average” factor for each day of the week cannot differ
from the factors at each station by more than ± 0.10. The grouping is evaluated in
Table 7.
Table 7: Average Daily Factors for Group and Assessment

1.17

Obviously, four of the factors lie outside the acceptable range. It appears that Station 3
most likely should be eliminated. Assuming that they are still spatially contiguous,
Stations 1, 2, and 4 may be grouped, and must again be tested, as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Re‐Grouped Stations Tested

The re‐grouping meets the acceptability criteria, and would be used.